I couldn't make it 20 pages through The Grapes of Wrath the first time I picked it up, but when I came back to it a year later I really enjoyed it. But I can see why people would take issue with, say, the chapter devoted to a turtle crossing the road. That leaves itself pretty wide open to ridicule.
Hey, Dickens essentially devoted a chapter to describing some mud once. Hugo did one better and devoted an entire chapter to describing an oak door.
So I ended up going to Borders and picking up House of Leaves (because most of you speak highly of it and for most things haven't steered me wrong.), A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, and Neuromancer.
I've never met anyone who didn't at least like The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. It's really great.
And as for A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, I picked it up for the title and ended up liking it, though it's not perfect. It drags in places and the interest of the author's quirky style wears off rather quickly, but overall I'd say it's worth a look.
redhead on
0
Options
The GeekOh-Two Crew, OmeganautRegistered User, ClubPAregular
EDIT: Without looking for any more specific quotations, the general idea that the "science" answer to the mysteries of the universe is the obviously correct one despite that we only have circumstantial evidence is absurd; he criticizes creationists for believing things without proof, but his own beliefs cannot be proven.
From what I've read, it's not that he's saying that it's the "obviously correct one", but that it's much more feasible and likely given what we do know about the universe. If nothing else, that science is a much more rational and reasonable answer than just throwing your hands up in the air and going "god did it!"
I'm curious that why it is that when Dawkins is solid in his side of the issue, it's means he's a condecending prick, but the other side is allowed to be the same way and it's just excused off to "well, freedom of religion, durr hurr hurr."
I don't know. Whatever happened last night may have been a strange lapse in space-time, and things seem to have smoothed over as if it never happened. The universe has a way!
I bought 'Only Revolutions' by the house of leaves guy. Fuck that guy. If he wants to tell two stories he can do it simultaneously, not put it in the other side of the book upside down with the letter o in orange and a bunch of meaningless shit all over the page. I'm still trying to give it a chance, but chances are I'm going to pawn it off to someone else.
I just bought Love is a Mix Tap: Life and Loss, One Song at a Time and its pretty good so far. I love those books that have song listings and personal explanations, like Songbook by Nick Hornby. Its a gold mine for my own mix taping needs.
Stranger in a Strange Land and Catch 22.
The only two books I had to put down part way through and think about for a couple hours.
I read a lot of books.
What does reading Ayn Rand and shooting up heroin have in common?
They both make you an asshole for at least two years.
not bad
I was just sort of expecting disagreement with my perspective since the post was clearly marked "Callius" but I guess there was a mistake at the factory.
Man, it's like everyone can actually agree on something.
What does reading Ayn Rand and shooting up heroin have in common?
They both make you an asshole for at least two years.
not bad
I was just sort of expecting disagreement with my perspective since the post was clearly marked "Callius" but I guess there was a mistake at the factory.
Man, it's like everyone can actually agree on something.
"Ayn Rand: The selfish bitch everyone at work can agree on."
What does reading Ayn Rand and shooting up heroin have in common?
They both make you an asshole for at least two years.
not bad
I was just sort of expecting disagreement with my perspective since the post was clearly marked "Callius" but I guess there was a mistake at the factory.
Man, it's like everyone can actually agree on something.
"Ayn Rand: The selfish bitch everyone at work can agree on."
I want to disagree out of principle, but I can't lie about something like this: Ayn Rand sucks ass and turns friends into assholes.
What does reading Ayn Rand and shooting up heroin have in common?
They both make you an asshole for at least two years.
not bad
I was just sort of expecting disagreement with my perspective since the post was clearly marked "Callius" but I guess there was a mistake at the factory.
Man, it's like everyone can actually agree on something.
This has to be the first time that I've agreed with BOTH Cal and Defender on anything.
Now all we need is for Butters to chime in to agree, and the Square of Mystery will be complete, and the Dark One will be released from his eternal prison.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
I'm not saying I like Ayn Rand or her egotistical philosophies. However, I can put that aside, and enjoy a novel for what it is. I don't have to agree with the philosophies presented to enjoy The Fountainhead. I found it to be a compelling, page-turning novel, with some interesting characters.
I haven't really seen anything here that expresses a valid opinion of her writing. All I see is "I hate her" and "her philosophies are retarded." Yeah, okay, but that has very little to do with the book itself, as you read it. Sure, her personality went into it, but you can sever that and take the book at face value.
I mean, people hate Orson Scott Card for being a fag-hating Mormon. I think Mormons are pretty god-damn stupid, personally, and I hate predjudiced mor(m)ons, but I'm not going to sit here and say that Ender's Game is a bad book because of it.
Anyway, I've never read Atlus Shrugged, so maybe that book sucks. I really enjoyed The Fountainhead as a novel.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
Hell, George Bernard Shaw, I believe, is the one that coined "those who can...do, those who can't...teach" or at least he said something similar. English teachers hate that, but they still teach Pygmalion and some of his other works. He may have been a pretentious asshole, but his works are good for what they are. Hell, Pygmalion is another great play that I entirely disagree with philosophically, but still enjoyed.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
I didn't say she was a bad writer.
I just said that she's a retard who attempts to rationalize being an asshole.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
Incorrect.
Rand, as both a novelist and self-styled "philosopher," couched her personal code of "rational egoism" in most of her works, essentially turning them into Objectivist parables at best, and manifestos at worst. Her bankrupt philosophy forms the bedrock upon which all of her writing--even her fiction--lies. Therefore it is perfectly rational to dislike her writing because one disagrees with her philosophy, as the two are inseparable.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
I didn't say she was a bad writer.
I just said that she's a retard who attempts to rationalize being an asshole.
Okay, then my points aren't for you, but Defender is saying that anyone that "speaks well of" Ayn Rand is a self-centered individual, and I assume he's including someone like me, that says she's a good writer, because that's technically "speaking well of" her. Just because I think she can throw words together on a page well doesn't mean I appreciate her Objectivism or that I subscribe to it, or that I'm a self-centered individual in every facet of my life. It just means I like her writing ability, and enjoyed The Fountainhead.
I'm only a self-centered douche in half the facets of my life.
Hell, George Bernard Shaw, I believe, is the one that coined "those who can...do, those who can't...teach" or at least he said something similar.
When I was first out of the military, I met a real pretentious ass of a literature professor while I was out drinking with some friends who were welcoming me home. Conversation with this individual was not pleasant. He actually sneered at me when he said, "Those who can't think, fight."
To which I responded, "Those who can't do, teach. And apparently, they can only afford shitty well-level vodka for their martinis." And then I gulped down my 25-year-old scotch and ordered another.
I'm pretty sure that being a smug self-centered cunt whose entire advice is "only look out for number 1 and fuck the rest... oh yeah, cigarettes rock" is pretty much a surefire way to be branded as a smug self-centered cunt.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
Incorrect.
Rand, as both a novelist and self-styled "philosopher," couched her personal code of "rational egoism" in most of her works, essentially turning them into Objectivist parables at best, and manifestos at worst. Her bankrupt philosophy forms the bedrock upon which all of her writing--even her fiction--lies. Therefore it is perfectly rational to dislike her writing because one disagrees with her philosophy, as the two are inseparable.
No, no, it's entirely correct, sorry. Saying "incorrect" doesn't make your claim any more logical or less of a fallacy, which is precisely what "poisoning the well" is, regardless of how you may rationalize it. Yes, one's philosophies certainly can and usually do factor into a work. But your talk of manifestos, parables, etc. just proves that you are doing nothing more than coloring your opinion of her writing based on her principles (or lack of principles, depending on your perspective).
You can say you don't like Ayn Rand as a person. You can say you don't like The Fountainhead or what have you because it has content you don't enjoy reading about. But you cannot say someone is a bad writer solely because of her philosophies and that they spill into her books as content. Being a "good writer" or "bad writer" really has very little to do with the content they choose to use.
That is my only point. You can dislike Ayn Rand, her books, and her writing in general if you like, but do so for the right reasons. I don't really have any personal opinion of her. I think she touches on some interesting points, but I disagree with Objectivism in it's entirety. And yet, I don't think she is a bad writer. I think The Fountainhead is a well-constructed novel regardless of the philosophical content presented. When I say "good writer" I speak of building tension, fleshing out characters, and so forth. I think she did a good job of writing an interesting book, even if Howard Roark and the lot of them could die in a fire and I wouldn't give two shits.
edit: I understand your point, naporean, and I forgive it because I do it too in many circumstances. If you and I got into a fist fight, I most likely will not enjoy your taunting haiku as you chant it at me because, at the time, I hate your guts and want to pound your face in. People do that all the time. But it's still logically false to do so.
Hell, George Bernard Shaw, I believe, is the one that coined "those who can...do, those who can't...teach" or at least he said something similar.
When I was first out of the military, I met a real pretentious ass of a literature professor while I was out drinking with some friends who were welcoming me home. Conversation with this individual was not pleasant. He actually sneered at me when he said, "Those who can't think, fight."
To which I responded, "Those who can't do, teach. And apparently, they can only afford shitty well-level vodka for their martinis." And then I gulped down my 25-year-old scotch and ordered another.
Ahhhahahahhaha. Good show. Fucking pretentious fucks.
t Callius - my junior year (High School) English teacher claimed to hate him for it, but I think the anger was for show. She was awesome, though. My favorite teacher ever.
Posts
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I just read Call of Cthulu today.
Fucking chilling, it is.
Neat.
muh.
because I will
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
And as for A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, I picked it up for the title and ended up liking it, though it's not perfect. It drags in places and the interest of the author's quirky style wears off rather quickly, but overall I'd say it's worth a look.
From what I've read, it's not that he's saying that it's the "obviously correct one", but that it's much more feasible and likely given what we do know about the universe. If nothing else, that science is a much more rational and reasonable answer than just throwing your hands up in the air and going "god did it!"
I'm curious that why it is that when Dawkins is solid in his side of the issue, it's means he's a condecending prick, but the other side is allowed to be the same way and it's just excused off to "well, freedom of religion, durr hurr hurr."
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Seriously?
Does the Carebears scare you too?
Found Call of Cthulu to be kinda boring.
You used to be cool, Drez.
Not anymore.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The only two books I had to put down part way through and think about for a couple hours.
I read a lot of books.
I don't know how good a writer she is
But she's a stupid, selfish bitch
And every single individual person I've ever known who has spoken well of her has been a total self-centered cockbag in basically every facet of life
This is one of those days.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
What does reading Ayn Rand and shooting up heroin have in common?
They both make you an asshole for at least two years.
I wouldn't cross the street to piss on Ayn Rand if she was on fire.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I was just sort of expecting disagreement with my perspective since the post was clearly marked "Callius" but I guess there was a mistake at the factory.
Man, it's like everyone can actually agree on something.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
I want to disagree out of principle, but I can't lie about something like this: Ayn Rand sucks ass and turns friends into assholes.
You know I hate Ayn Rand.
Now all we need is for Butters to chime in to agree, and the Square of Mystery will be complete, and the Dark One will be released from his eternal prison.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
So, how is it that you don't like her, Defender?
I haven't really seen anything here that expresses a valid opinion of her writing. All I see is "I hate her" and "her philosophies are retarded." Yeah, okay, but that has very little to do with the book itself, as you read it. Sure, her personality went into it, but you can sever that and take the book at face value.
I mean, people hate Orson Scott Card for being a fag-hating Mormon. I think Mormons are pretty god-damn stupid, personally, and I hate predjudiced mor(m)ons, but I'm not going to sit here and say that Ender's Game is a bad book because of it.
Anyway, I've never read Atlus Shrugged, so maybe that book sucks. I really enjoyed The Fountainhead as a novel.
Again, this has nothing to do with her abilities as a writer. "Poisoning the well" is a very popular logical fallacy. If you don't like her as a writer or her writings, that's fine, different tastes and all that, but you can't say "she's a bad writer because she's a pretentious douchebag," because it doesn't necessarily follow.
Hell, George Bernard Shaw, I believe, is the one that coined "those who can...do, those who can't...teach" or at least he said something similar. English teachers hate that, but they still teach Pygmalion and some of his other works. He may have been a pretentious asshole, but his works are good for what they are. Hell, Pygmalion is another great play that I entirely disagree with philosophically, but still enjoyed.
I didn't say she was a bad writer.
I just said that she's a retard who attempts to rationalize being an asshole.
Rand, as both a novelist and self-styled "philosopher," couched her personal code of "rational egoism" in most of her works, essentially turning them into Objectivist parables at best, and manifestos at worst. Her bankrupt philosophy forms the bedrock upon which all of her writing--even her fiction--lies. Therefore it is perfectly rational to dislike her writing because one disagrees with her philosophy, as the two are inseparable.
Twitter | Facebook | Tumblr | Last.fm | Pandora | LibraryThing | formspring | Blue Moon over Seattle (MCFC)
Okay, then my points aren't for you, but Defender is saying that anyone that "speaks well of" Ayn Rand is a self-centered individual, and I assume he's including someone like me, that says she's a good writer, because that's technically "speaking well of" her. Just because I think she can throw words together on a page well doesn't mean I appreciate her Objectivism or that I subscribe to it, or that I'm a self-centered individual in every facet of my life. It just means I like her writing ability, and enjoyed The Fountainhead.
I'm only a self-centered douche in half the facets of my life.
When I was first out of the military, I met a real pretentious ass of a literature professor while I was out drinking with some friends who were welcoming me home. Conversation with this individual was not pleasant. He actually sneered at me when he said, "Those who can't think, fight."
To which I responded, "Those who can't do, teach. And apparently, they can only afford shitty well-level vodka for their martinis." And then I gulped down my 25-year-old scotch and ordered another.
No, no, it's entirely correct, sorry. Saying "incorrect" doesn't make your claim any more logical or less of a fallacy, which is precisely what "poisoning the well" is, regardless of how you may rationalize it. Yes, one's philosophies certainly can and usually do factor into a work. But your talk of manifestos, parables, etc. just proves that you are doing nothing more than coloring your opinion of her writing based on her principles (or lack of principles, depending on your perspective).
You can say you don't like Ayn Rand as a person. You can say you don't like The Fountainhead or what have you because it has content you don't enjoy reading about. But you cannot say someone is a bad writer solely because of her philosophies and that they spill into her books as content. Being a "good writer" or "bad writer" really has very little to do with the content they choose to use.
That is my only point. You can dislike Ayn Rand, her books, and her writing in general if you like, but do so for the right reasons. I don't really have any personal opinion of her. I think she touches on some interesting points, but I disagree with Objectivism in it's entirety. And yet, I don't think she is a bad writer. I think The Fountainhead is a well-constructed novel regardless of the philosophical content presented. When I say "good writer" I speak of building tension, fleshing out characters, and so forth. I think she did a good job of writing an interesting book, even if Howard Roark and the lot of them could die in a fire and I wouldn't give two shits.
edit: I understand your point, naporean, and I forgive it because I do it too in many circumstances. If you and I got into a fist fight, I most likely will not enjoy your taunting haiku as you chant it at me because, at the time, I hate your guts and want to pound your face in. People do that all the time. But it's still logically false to do so.
Ahhhahahahhaha. Good show. Fucking pretentious fucks.
t Callius - my junior year (High School) English teacher claimed to hate him for it, but I think the anger was for show. She was awesome, though. My favorite teacher ever.